Wednesday - June 29, 2005

Homeless

It looks like Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who voted this week in favor of the land snatch ruling, may find himself homeless if the city where he lives goes through with its plans ....

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.

Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/29/2005 at 06:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Addendum

_{Bob Gorrell, National/Syndicated}

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/29/2005 at 05:57 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Religion •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - June 27, 2005

SCOTUS KILLS GROKSTER

The Supremes rounded out their day of infamy with a final ruling, saying that internet file-sharing services can be held responsible for what their users do. MGM, which brought the case is now dancing with glee and already sending the lawyers after Grokster. Look for other big Hollywood studios to pile on ....

WASHINGTON - Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.

The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services
Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn’t be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.

File-sharing services shouldn’t get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.

“We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/27/2005 at 10:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Hollywood • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

No Ten Commandments

Well, SCOTUS has handed down its decision on display of The Ten Commandments in public places like courthouses, city halls, etc. ....

WASHINGTON - In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.

The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion’s place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they’re portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation’s legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

“The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

“When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,” he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor, who provided the swing vote.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation’s religious and legal history.

“Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate”, Scalia said.

He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

“In the court’s view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable,” he wrote. “Surely that cannot be.”

“The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history,” Scalia wrote.

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/27/2005 at 09:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Religion •  
• Comments (21) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Land Snatch Tune

_{Jeff Stahler, The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio}

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/27/2005 at 06:28 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - June 26, 2005

Fasten Your Seat Belts ….

.... and return your seats to the full upright position. SCOTUS is bringing our plane in for a landing tomorrow. Monday ends the court’s current term and there are still two extremely important decisions to be passed down ....

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ends its work Monday with the highest of drama: an anticipated retirement, a ruling on the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and decisions in other major cases.

Traditionally there is an air of suspense as the justices meet for the final time before breaking for three months. Justices usually wait until then to resolve blockbuster cases.

Added to that is the expectation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is presiding over the court for the last time. Rehnquist has thyroid cancer and many court experts believe his retirement is imminent.

Justices have a few cases left to resolve, including two of the most-watched of the term: the Ten Commandments appeals from Texas and Kentucky and a case that will determine the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients’ illegal swapping of songs and movies.

Also Monday, justices are expected to announce whether they will hear appeals from two journalists who may face jail time for refusing to reveal sources in the leak of an undercover CIA officer’s identity.

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/26/2005 at 11:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - June 25, 2005

Useful Web Sites For Homeowners

Join the battle against Supreme Court Radicals Of The United States (SCROTUS) today. Here are some useful web sites to bookmark and keep track of ....

• Eminent Domain Watch


• The Castle Coalition


• The Institute for Justice


• The Coalition for Redevelopment Reform


• Ammo.Net

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/25/2005 at 01:02 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The Great Land Snatch Begins

The Great Land Snatch of 2005 is on. First out of the gate was Washington, DC. Now, Houston, Texas piles on and plans to wipe out several seafood companies to build an $8 million private marina. Their reason? The marina will attract hotels, restaurants and other businesses ....

FREEPORT - With Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people’s homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

“This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together,” Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city’s depressed downtown area.

Over the years, Freeport’s lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.

“This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city,” City Manager Ron Bottoms said.

Lee Cameron, director of the city’s Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city’s downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have “high interest,” have contacted the city about building near the marina.

“It’s all dependent on the marina,” Cameron said. “Without the marina, (the hotels) aren’t interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it’s a home run.”

Since September 2003, the city has been locked in a legal battle to acquire a 300-by-60-foot tract of land along the Old Brazos River near the Pine Street bridge as well as a 200-foot tract and 100-foot tract along the river through eminent domain from Western Seafood Co. and Trico Seafood Co.

Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use upon payment of the fair market value.

The tracts of land would be used for a planned 800- to 900-slip marina to be built by Freeport Marina, a group that that includes Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He would buy the property from the city and receive a $6 million loan from the city to develop the project.

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/25/2005 at 01:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (21) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - June 24, 2005

In Case You Thought They Were Kidding …

Less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court’s decision to allow local municipalities to seize private land from citizens, our nation’s capitol is the first to jump on the bandwagon. That’s right, the Washington, DC mayor and council are already making plans to seize land to build a stadium for the new Washington Nationals baseball team, among other things. Lock and load, people. What you’re about to witness will be an ugly sight indeed ....

District leaders said a Supreme Court ruling yesterday that gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property will provide the city leverage in its goal to acquire land for two controversial projects, including a new baseball stadium.

Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) had been closely watching an eminent domain case in which homeowners in New London, Conn., sued the city when it attempted to take their land to develop a shopping mall. The court upheld the right of city governments to force property owners to sell to make way for private development.

D.C. officials want to acquire 14 acres near the Anacostia waterfront by the end of the year to build a stadium for the Nationals. They also have been trying to buy the 1950s-era Skyland strip mall in Southeast to build a larger, upscale retail complex. In both cases, city officials say they will invoke eminent domain if necessary.

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/24/2005 at 10:16 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Dissenting Opinion

The Supreme Court has moved this country one step closer to a “people to be governed” instead of a “government of the people”. With yesterday’s decision in Kelo vs. City Of New London (PDF), we, the people of the United States of America can no longer count on having a place to call “home” which cannot be taken away from us by government. We have surrendered our rights that were set down in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to The Constitution Of The United States.

The decision was by a 5-4 margin.

Justices Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer carried the majority in this travesty of justice.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the dissenting opinion for herself, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia ....

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

“An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority . . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner whowill use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process.

To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

In accordance with the Rights vested in me, I hereby declare today, Friday, June 24, 2005 to be celebrated by all members of this great nation with each and every one of you buying at least 100 (one hundred) rounds of ammo in honor of this decision by the liberal asshats on SCOTUS. Today is hereby declared ....

NATIONAL AMMO FOR HOME DAY

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 06/24/2005 at 12:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Outrageous •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

There’s No Place Like .. Uh-Oh !

_{Gary Brookins, Virginia—The Richmond Times-Dispatch}

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/24/2005 at 12:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - June 23, 2005

SCOTUS: Land Snatching Approved

The Supreme Court today ruled on a case we reported on back in February (Part I) and March (Part II) involving a town seizing a person’s property to make way for development projects, or “imminent domain” as it is referred to ....

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for “public use.”

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners’ property rights, even if the area wasn’t blighted.

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/23/2005 at 11:23 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Outrageous •  
• Comments (24) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - June 22, 2005

Dances With Weasels

Several weeks ago, after the departure of my former partner, I decided to go ahead and pay the $250 and register BMEWS as a Limited Liability Corporation to avoid or limit any legal entanglements that might occur in the course of publishing this blog. I hired a weasel nice young lawyer to draw up the paperwork and handle it.

With the recent attack on Monday that rendered the site inaccessible, I have had numerous discussions with this nice young practitioner of the legal profession (hack! hack! cough! cough!) and he has advised me to post a Terms & Conditions Of Use document here to pave the way for severe legal action in the event the site is attacked again.

This is, in no way, intended to limit or alter your use of the blog. It is being done simply as a reponse to recent malicious acts. With that said, I have been forced at gunpoint directed to “recommend” that you all read it at your earliest convenience and to check it often for updates. There is a link at the bottom of the right sidebar for permanent access to this slimey crap informational document.

Thank you for your indulgence and appreciation of this blog. You may now carry on with normal activities (provided you can verify that no animals were harmed in any manner during the course of posting any comments). Sheesh!

Note: If “You-Know-Who” is reading this, you surely know I was only kidding while making the snide remarks about lawyers, don’t you? It was sarcasm, parody, poetic license, freedom of speech. Please, don’t hurt me!

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/22/2005 at 02:21 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - June 08, 2005

States Rights?

_{Mike Keefe, The Denver Post}

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/08/2005 at 06:15 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner